...INTRODUCTION Is science a religion? This topic has been debated by many creationists and scientists alike. The philosophy of science makes no claims to knowledge about the supernatural or metaphysical and, by not so doing, is left with an enterprise that although hugely successful is also permanently on trial (Manne, 2010). The only thing scientists can agree upon is the empirical nature of science, but the steps from observations to theory are not without philosophical problems. DISCUSSION Thomas Kuhn thinks that scientific paradigms are essentially pictures of the world that are consistent with observations and logically coherent. But such pictures are necessarily always incomplete, at least until such time as we know everything, and our minds seem to struggle to accept this; it seems like there is an aesthetic compulsion to create harmonious images, even if that means filling in the spaces with metaphysical constructs. Andrew Brown states that the dictionary is wrong; science can be a religion too. He explains that if you strictly use the dictionary definition of science then it cannot be considered a religion, but if you look at science objectively you can see how it could be considered one. He makes a strong argument that religion has too many definitions for science to not be considered one. Richard Dawkins believes the opposite. He states that science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its main...
Words: 1808 - Pages: 8
...Religion and Science: The relationship between science and religion up until the 6th century were one in the same. Philosophers believed that natural occurrences were due to a divine power. Earthquakes and thunderstorms were merely upset gods showing their wrath. Individuals sought to learn the language of the gods to comprehend these phenomena. After the 6th century, new ideas formed that excluded the gods. These philosophers did not personify nature. They believed the world to be orderly and predictable. This brought on a renaissance of thought. By examining everything up to this point in history, the distinction between science and religion became clear. This rift spawned modern thought and science as we know it. Primitive science originated from man’s desire to speak to the gods and learn about natural phenomena in the world. Almost all of the ancient civilizations (Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.) had myths and beliefs about the origin of the human race and the formation of major topographical features. Up until about the 6th century, people believed in demon possessions, ghosts, and a variety of other invisible ailment-causing entities. They also believed that magic rituals allowed one to control these anomalies. Such individuals were generally held in esteem amongst the community. The reason why such myths were taken as fact for so long is attributed to the notion of “oral tradition.” Oral tradition was a method of keeping culture alive before there was a written record...
Words: 843 - Pages: 4
...Sara Ossaba English 101 April 30, 2015 Religion and Science In the beginning there was darkness. Then there was light. Then there was consciousness. Then there were questions and then there was religion. Why are we? Where do we come from? Why does the world and nature act as it does? What happens when we die? Religion tended to the answer to all these questions with the stories of gods and other supernatural forces that were beyond the understanding of humans. Where science seems able to explain everything with prove and evidence right before your eyes. Science deals with the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. ‘’Creationism", another view on man's origin, means belief in creation in a more general sense. A Creationist may believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to form more complex forms including humans. In addition to that belief, however, is the belief that a supernatural Creator initiated the life process and continues to control it. The most reasonable view on the origin of mankind is known as naturalistic evolution. It means a gradual process by which one kind of living creature changes into something different; evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Another part of the idea is that more complex...
Words: 2160 - Pages: 9
...5, 2013 World Religions Professor McCormack Can Science and Religion Co-Exist We hear from different scholars and people that science and religion can co-exist and some says it cannot. I say that it can to a certain extent. I believe that science is what God wants us to know and he has helped us throughout the ages discover new things. We discovered that the Sun is the center of the Milky Way and that the planets revolve around it. We discovered that the Earth is round and that people will not fall off. New planets are being discovered and old planets becoming something else (poor Pluto). I will also explain why I believe that science and religion can co-exist to a certain point later on in the paper. According to Professor Ayala, “Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction if they properly understood. They cannot be in contradiction” (NPR, 2010 ). I have always asked myself, how did God created the Earth? I still ponder that. We know from the first book in the bible that God created the world on day one (whatever that means in God years). So what if science has a few theories on how it happened. What if science may be on the right track into figuring it all out? In this case I do believe what Professor Ayala said that religion and science does not need to be in contradiction for as long as they are understood. Now here is my issue, the origin of life. Professor Ayala explains that religion tells us how to get to heaven but science tells us how heaven...
Words: 459 - Pages: 2
...Erbland RELS 376-02 Science, Religion, and Their Relationship To describe the relationship between science and religion, I must first define the two individually. To me, science is a systematic process of making observations through experiments and evaluating the results to draw conclusions. It uses a specific method in which one first poses a question. Then with research and other information, a hypothesis is constructed to be tested with repetition. The results will indicate whether the hypothesis is true or not. If false, the data collected is recycled to form a new hypothesis for testing again. This process insures that all information and facts are collected first and then are used to construct scientific laws and theories. For if a theory is constructed first and then backed by correlating data, then it is not science at all. Science uses the totality of the circumstances to draw these conclusions and does not pretend to confirm laws that can not be proven. Religion on the other hand does not hold such a factual process to avoid false judgments. Much of its foundation is based on faith and belief in what is passed down generationally, typically containing a view that some superhuman or divine power has developed what we see and interact with around us. It is often difficult to distinguish the so-called right belief because nothing can be proven by objective observations or factual events. I’ve come to agree with William James’s definition of religion as what, “[individuals]...
Words: 629 - Pages: 3
...Are Science and Religion in Conflict? Informal Logic: 4 May 2013 There are many reasons why science and religion are in conflict because, some have Christian views and feel as though we got here by God, and then you have those that believe we got here through what many of have learn as evolution; this is we got here based on what scientific evidence has left behind for scientist have found. This reading will simply explain the following premises: the nature of science evolution and paleoanthropolgy, and the views of Christians. Using Karl Popper’s method of disconfirming I will explain how I feel science, “The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process,” (NAS, 2008)) and religion, “The service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance (“Religion”), do not conflict. From apelike ancestors, human evolution is the process of change by which people originated from ("Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program",). Based on Merriam-Webster 11th ed., “Evolution is the historical development of a biological group; and a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable difference are due to modifications in successive generations. Evolution forms vary from animal, plant and human evolution; scientific...
Words: 2547 - Pages: 11
...Villavicencio BS Management 1 Communication Skills 2 Science and Religion Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. This is a famous line quoted by Albert Einstein. Way back in time during the last century, it was widely held that there was an irreconcilable conflict between knowledge and faith. Even until the modern period, different opinions on this speculation prevailed among advanced minds. Both the method and aims of science and religion seem to be different. While science is linked to the material, religion is concerned with the spiritual. Science deals with the world that we know and could be understood by the senses. It relies in the study of processes, forces, and development of nature, which is based on the analysis of evidence through laboratory works and series of actual experiments. Scientists believe that various processes and events we observe take place due to natural causes instead of some divine forces. Moreover, science is precise, and the matters of morality, spirituality, and holiness lie beyond its areas of interest. On the other hand, religion begins where science ends. It is closely connected to faith that is a profound concept in Christianity. The main bases of religion is often revelations reflected from the holy bible and given by a deity that is either traditionally transmitted from elders to their offspring, or revealed to the believers in the process of prayer. Religion believes more on the spiritual and divine aspects...
Words: 627 - Pages: 3
...Charles Darwin was heavily opposed to the creationism theory. He openly campaigned to discredit the bible. In his autobiography, Darwin stated “he had begun to see the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.” I personally wouldn’t describe the theory of creationism that way, but an intelligent thinking person could take some issues with it. How does one argue in support of creationism when there absolutely zero tangible proof? The only response from religious believers is to lean on their faith. A faith that asked them to trust and worship an unknown, unseen God of love and mercy. Darwin argued that this faith is misguided and misplaced. Darwin attacked the miracles in Christianity as well. He argued that the more we learn about physical laws of nature, the more unbelievable they become. He would further argue that the Gospels cannot be proved have been written simultaneously with events, thus important details could be inaccurate. This particular line of thought could have some merit. Any reasonable thinking person can’t dispute how information gets “twisted” or lost in translation when being told and retold person to person. Better still, take a look at the recent situation in Ferguson with the death of Mike Brown. There are...
Words: 362 - Pages: 2
...All throughout the history of man, religion and science have always been in conflict. Although there is conflict between science and religion, it can be theorized with the Hostility, Harmony, and Indifference Theories that have manifested from the credence of each. The Hostility Theory is a theory about the conflict of science and religion in which both sides, the religious and, the scientific; believe both sides are dangerously wrong in their approach and beliefs. People that fit this theory have very strong religious beliefs and are strongly against scientist trying to disprove their beliefs and customs. Scientists that fit this theory hate that people could believe in a higher power and believe it is their duty to disprove religion and its customs. Both believe one is operating under dangerous delusions. Religious people believe science should be more open to religious beliefs, and scientists believe religions should be more open to scientific theories. On one side of the spectrum you have a scientist, Newton, which believed in God, but on the other spectrum, Darwin believes in evolution without God or religion. Newton could explain scientifically on why something was, but would credit God for allowing him to be able to explain it. Darwin’s theory of evolution is still against religion to this day with the presumption that humans evolved from apes instead of being created by God. No single interpretive statement stands in isolation from the set of assumptions undergirding...
Words: 855 - Pages: 4
...Science vs. Religion Are Science and Religion in Conflict? PHI103: Informal Logic (GSK1124I) For as long as anyone can remember in human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and scientific views have often clashed with one another. Religious ideas are usually presented first and then enough scientific evidence accumulates to dare religious beliefs. These findings of science are met with skepticism and most are considered a heresy. Science and religion exist in a kind of push and pull relationship: just as the yen does not exist without the yang. Science strives to replace religious beliefs with proven scientific theories and religion challenges the scientific theories with the strength and positive effects of a belief. Since the middle ages until the 18th century, religious ideology was the most accepted way of explaining the unexplained. During the next couple hundred years, many members of academia (a school of philosophy), using science to back them up, came up with new ways of dealing with the unanswerable questions. Humans have striven to explain the many mysteries of the universe, and to justify our existence in it. Throughout this journey of self-understanding, numerous standpoints on human existence have evolved and merged into a complex, abstract manifestation called religion. However, as the human race has grown and advanced itself, many ideas expressed...
Words: 1444 - Pages: 6
...Garrett Evans Online English Essay Final Draft In a world that values knowledge so dearly, and bases judgment off of tangible evidence, Christians often come under fire for having faith in the supernatural. The scientific community and religious people have disagreed for centuries, but steps are being taken towards the integration of the two fields. Science and religion may finally not be at odds anymore. Instead of using science to disprove God, it should be used to grow closer to Him. God gave humanity a curious nature, and it should be used to pursue Him and understand the world He created. We now live in the era of information and science, and we must open our belief systems to these things. Science, by definition, is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Dictionary.com). Religion and science are both ways in which we try to understand the world we live in, “but science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations” (Evolution Resources…). If the scientific method, the process by which these observations are made and evidence is collected, is the foundation for the worldview that to understand the universe, one must look only at the universe. On the other hand, religious people use supernatural entities to explain natural occurrences in this world. From this perspective, complex natural occurrences, such as the stars, point toward...
Words: 663 - Pages: 3
...Are Science and Religion in Conflict? Name PHI 103 Instructor Date The economic crisis that struck the world between 2008 to 2009 had such resounding adverse impacts that brought even the mightiest economies to its knees. Even at present, the far-reaching effects of the crisis remain almost palpable and may be seen in high unemployment rates, economies still in recession and seemingly insurmountable national deficits. The United States, where the crisis had its beginnings continues to suffer from the recession even if it is gradually recovering. The present problems in the Euro zone may be partly attributed to the recession of 2008. Because of these, many scholars, economic analysts, researchers and businessmen continue to endeavor up to now to discern what the real cause of the economic crisis was in the hopes that it will not happen again. Many people attribute the global economic meltdown to the collapse of the subprime sector in the United States. To put it simply, the mortgage sector was blamed for the crisis because of how many financial instruments were collateralized by mortgages of people who had bad credit histories. When too many of them failed to meet their obligations, it began a series of defaults that ultimately collapsed not only the mortgage industry but the financial industry as well. All those that have investments in both sectors, local and foreign entities, also became affected as they lost what they have invested...
Words: 3129 - Pages: 13
...Faith and Science Ther are several principle Albl uses as guidelines for believers use of religion and science. All his principles appear to provide an appropriate balance between religion and science. These principles allow us to use religion and science with an outlook somewhere between fideism and nonoverlapping magisterium (NOMA). Religion should not be too rigid or close-minded and science alone cannot explain the transcedent. Of all Albl’s priciples, I believe that dialogue between religion and science allows each to influence the other is the most relevant (95). This principle directly relates to the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Jay Goulds NOMA concept (Albl 88). Science operates in the empirical realm whereas religion operates in the spiritual realm. Science provides explanations for why the universe is the way it is. Religion on the other hand provides explanations for what transcendent entity created the universe. Yet if it were not for religion perhaps most of the scientific theories we believe today would not exist. The spiritual connection with the transcendent provides the motivation for scientists to explore and answer the unanswered. This includes scientists who are non-believers as well. Scientists who are non-believers seek to answer questions, which will provide substantial theories for transcendence. This why religion and science having a dialogue between them is crucial to there existence and evolution. It is ideal when scientists develop theories...
Words: 516 - Pages: 3
...that God and Darwin can coexist. Mendel was interested in heredity and did major work in the development of the study of the genetics of plants before the science was even beginning to be developed. Historically issues of faith and science have collided and I would think that both theology and science have its place in the world as the search for knowledge continues. Religious Fundamentalism which requires a literal interpretation of the Bible as a substitute for science is bad theology and bad for science, and mistakenly puts the science and theology at war assuming that there is only one truth and it exists in one place and is not subject to any further interpretation. Simil arly mean spirited materialistic science which negates or belittles theology is similarly wrong headed and denies much of the basis from which it came. Historically I believe that both science and theology have their place in explaining man's and or women's place in the universe and their relation to other living beings. For much of history churches and religious orders have done much to support what has come to be known as a scientific study of the universe. Galileo explained that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun and that has come to be accepted. Earlier church teaching were eventually discarded as mistaken and both science and theology have moved forward. Good...
Words: 398 - Pages: 2
...Plato Sample Answer Part (a) | | | Philosophy - Plato | Explain Plato's Analogy of the Cave (25 marks).This was written in 30 minutes in timed conditions.In Republic book VII Plato explains his analogy of the cave (an analogy is a simple story that has metaphorical meaning). Plato uses the analogy to help describe his philosophical position on the main difference between the physical world and the World of Forms (WoF). He believes that his analogy could clearly explain to others why the physical or world of sense experience was nothing but an illusion; that true reality must be found in the eternal unchanging World of Forms.Plato's analogy begins in a cave. The cave is meant to represent the physical world or the world of sense experience. A number of prisoners are bound by their necks and legs so that they cannot turn around. They have been this way since birth and know no other life than this. Behind the prisoners are a low wall, a walkway and a fire that burns. From time to time individuals carry objects like marionettes in front of the fire and shadows are cast against the wall in front of them. The prisoners observe the shadows that flicker before them and have developed a game over time. They try to predict the movements of the shadows. They associate the sounds made by the individuals with the shadows as this is all they know. They think of them as true reality.The prisoners in this case represent the ignorant unenlightened individuals yet to discover philosophical...
Words: 952 - Pages: 4
